3.8 Article

A cross-sectional study of traditional practices affecting maternal and newborn health in rural Nigeria

期刊

PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AFRICAN FIELD EPIDEMIOLOGY NETWORK-AFENET
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2018.31.64.15880

关键词

Harmful traditional practices; newborn; maternal health; female genital mutilation; early marriage; childbirth; uvulectomy

资金

  1. US National Institute of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Certain traditional practices which have negative effects on maternal and child health continue to be practiced in sub-Saharan African countries. A survey was carried out in a rural village in Nigeria to understand the scale and range of these practices. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which trained interviewers administered pre-tested questionnaires on child-bearing women using questionnaires embedded on android devices. Results: The median age of marriage and pregnancy were 15 and 16 years respectively. Home births were high (90.4%) while non-skilled birth attendant was 87.4%. The community had a son preference index ratio of 1:4.1. Up to 81.5% of mothers responded that one form of unhygienic traditional procedure or the other was performed on their children. Time to initiation of breast feeding was in hours in the majority (76.3%) of mothers, with a high rate of use of prelacteal feeds (85.2%). Being an adolescent mother (AOR 0.403, 95%CI 0.203, 0,797) and utilizing a skilled provider at birth (AOR 0.245, 95%CI 0.088, 0.683) were associated with less likelihood of having an unhygienic procedure performed on children. Conclusion: The findings of our study suggest that traditional practices which could have negative effects on maternal and child health are still ongoing in the study community. Child protection laws and safeguarding principles could help to reduce these practices and would need to be developed and implemented in these settings where these practices are still prevalent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据